Should a Man take Care of a Woman financially, in a serious relationship? Lets see what the 21st Century Thinks.

Asked by: LifeLightI
  • As a female

    I think a man should support a woman financially without complaints. Unfortunately as a female i already would feel bad taking money from my partner, without a relationship. I suppose times have changed. I still think its correct, but it would be rare to find one who shares similar views, 100%.

  • No, women can work too.

    Men should not have to provide for a partner simply because of his gender. Women can provide for men just as well, and many dual-working couples exist. The wage gap is mostly a myth, based on the fact that women simply care more for children at home (which is what this refers to), and work in lower-pay industries. It would be sexist to claim that all men should support women, and not vice versa. I'm sure that many men working in jobs would gladly switch roles with their wife, while the woman is content with staying at home.

  • No, he shouldn't!

    What kind of stupid, delusional, and prejudiced society are we living in?! People need to wake up and realize that men should not always have to do the work! Men are NOT AT ALL cash cows and they should be treated like actual human beings instead of pigs! NO ONE is a sex object! There are tons of female breadwinners and tons of women who financially take care of their husband or their boyfriend! You can't just tell someone what they should do and how they should act because of their gender or anything! How would you feel if someone told you how to act?! You would be pretty pissed off! Treat other people like you would treat yourself, you sexist moron! If you're feeling depressed, treat people like crap! If you're feeling angry, blame it on everyone! If you're happy, treat people with kindness! But NEVER, under ANY circumstances, force people to follow sexist stereotypes and gender roles! This is such a sad and stupid sexist question!

  • Man has no obligations.

    A very long time ago, marriages were a way to start a family, experience sexual pleasure, be protected from the eyes of people, have a sustainable common household finance (having a husband who pays for the house since women labor was looked down upon), maintain a good reputation, release oneself from parental financing (especially if a women's parents were unable to finance her anymore; this was found in abundance in Arabia) and satisfy God in religions like Islam where marriages are "half the religion". So, it wouldn't be odd that women used to get married at really young ages to any suitor they find who would provide them with all of the above. It was, of course, a harsh time, and finding suitors through love was hard, so planned marriages took place more often than not. Planned marriages weren't based on love and thus carried a lot of trouble. To solve the problems planned marriage carried, and to avoid divorce, religions put some sort of red line – a sort of bare minimum which couples should do. A man should pay his wife. A woman should please her husband.
    Those rules make marriage somewhat like a prisonhouse with strict rules that people have to follow. The insertation of obligations into marriage stripped it from any emotion it might've held.
    But with the advancement of human understanding, marriage lost its necessity as all the reasons that once made it important stopped being applicable in modern times. In it's place came love-based marriage – a bond that was not led by obligations but by emotions.
    So, nowadays, couples in relationships are emotion-led and not obligation-led as they were in the ancient times. Subsequently, man has no obligation to woman and she not to him unless it relates to their emotions, like their obligations to not cheat and whatnot.
    Also, feminism made it clear that a woman is equal to man, and not superior to him nor inferior. Believing that man has obligations to pay his spouse but everything else is equal flips the situation into reverse-sexism, or the belief that men are inferior to women, which contradicts with the whole feminism thing. So in order to keep them equal, they must have the same obligations if any. So if a man has to pay, then so does a woman.
    Also, limiting the question to man and woman is wrong itself in the 21st century, when we have all sorts of people on the gender spectrum and all sorts of sexualities. A homosexual relationship wouldn't arise such conflict, for example, for both lovers are of the same genders. Somehow, however, gender norms force themselves wrongly onto heterosexual relationships.
    So no, men are not obliged to pay to women.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.